Scheeze you guys, I was merely going to point out that Darwin never got close to the top of the canyon where he would have found live glaciers. According to his log of the trip, they had to turn back when the Andes were just in view.

But you have so totally demolished the stupidity of creato chew-toy sciencylouse that I feel quite redundant.

Edited by Dr.GH on Oct. 05 2009,22:10

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

On Agassiz, Darwin in his 1842 work, linked to in my previous comment, had this to say:

Quote

M. Agassiz has shown that blocks of rock are not imbedded in the ice of the Swiss glaciers, except high up near their sources, and that those numerous masses which lie on the surface, from not being exposed to much abrasion, remain angular: hence only loose angular blocks of rock (as was the case with those on the floating ice in Sir G. Eyre's Sound) can be transported by icebergs, detached from the glaciers of temperate countries. And to effect this, the icebergs must be floated off perpendicularly and in large masses, for otherwise the loose fragments would be at once hurled into the sea. These remarks do not necessarily apply to icebergs formed under a polar climate, for if a glacier in its descent, reached the sea before the fragments of rock which had fallen on the soft snow had come to the surface, icebergs would be produced with imbedded fragments of rock: I have described in the 'Geographical Journal'* the case of one huge fragment thus circumstanced, seen drifting far from land in the Antarctic Ocean.

--------------Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Ack, Mr. afarensis is right, as usual. When I said " Darwin couldn't have even known about Agassiz' "glacier theories" at the time," I was careless.

Darwin, in April of 1834 (the time of the Santa Cruz investigation), hadn't heard of Agassiz' theories.

By 1837, He had. Darwin expressed criticisms of Agassiz glacier theories in his Voyage of the Beagle,here and here.

Quote

"M. Agassiz has lately (Address to the Helvetic Society, July 1837, translated in Jameson's New Philosophical Journal, vol. xxiii., p. 364, and in several communications in the French periodical L'Institut) written on the subject of the glaciers and boulders of the Alps. He clearly proves, as it appears to me, that the presence of the boulders on the Jura cannot be explained by any debacle, or by the power of ancient glaciers driving before them moraines, or by the subsequent elevation of the surface on which the boulders now lie. M. Agassiz also denies that they were transported by floating ice, but he does not fully state his objections to this theory; nor does he oppose it, by the argument of the apparent anomaly of a low descent of glaciers."

By 1842, when Darwin had written " On the distribution of the erratic boulders and on the contemporaneous unstratified deposits of South America " (Transactions of the Geological Society of London. 6: 415-432.), Darwin had read Agassiz' "Étude sur les glaciers" (1841) and disagreed with Agassiz claims.

Darwin wrote to Lyell that Darwin believed Agassiz "confessed" therein that

Darwin obviously knew about Agassiz' glacier theories when Darwin wrote up the erratics piece -- he simply disagreed with Agassiz' mechanism. I had meant to simply refer to the 1834 Santa Cruz expedition, and neglected to clarify my point. Either way, it was lazy to phrase things the way I did.

It would be interesting to point out the parallels between our two current shewtoys' arguments (FL and Clownshoes). Very similar tactics at time. WE know these kind of tactics, but it might enlighten the casual onlooker.

Just a thought...

--------------"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

It would be interesting to point out the parallels between our two current shewtoys' arguments (FL and Clownshoes). Very similar tactics at time. WE know these kind of tactics, but it might enlighten the casual onlooker.

Just a thought...

Their tactics are a combination of Seagull and Princess of the Politeness Police.

The seagull element involves them flying in, squawking loudly and shitting everywhere, the PotPP element involves them pre-emptively whining about Teh Meanness so they have an excuse to run away or ignore inconvenient things like facts or logic.

FL has the additional element of "NUH UH you didn't say anything, lalalalalalalala can't hear you!", and both of them exhibit the wonderful creationist favourite of convenient relativism. I.e. they are dishonestly relativist when it suits them to be, they'll fall back on "same evidence, two interpretations" or an insinuation of this kind.

All very familiar, all very pathetic. Watch the tu quoque this engenders.

Louis

ETA: Oh you want a serious analysis, with examples? You think their schtick is worth it?

My feelings precisely. Mind you, I am so jaded with all this nonsense I am pretty sceptical about anyone on the net advancing anything. I've wasted vastly too much of my time chasing trolls and the utterly intellectually vacuous around their arguments. If someone genuinely novel and useful came along I'd be amazed, but until then, my care factor is loooooooow.

What really annoys me is this applies to the "bigwigs" too. If you've followed the Sullivan letters debacle on Jason Rosenhouse's blog, or (as any UD follower knows) Dembski's more academic works, or pretty much any theological "debate" the same shit applies. Bigger words and more erudite expression perhaps but the same asinine logical errors, the same evasion the same strawmen. The straw that broke this camel's back was Mark Vernon's book "After Atheism", it wasn't just bad, it was beautifully bad, so bad I was/am nearly inspired to write a book length rebuttal. If only my time wouldn't be utterly wasted in doing so, I think I would actually bother. My time is better spent with a book in hand, even one containing a bad argument like Vernon's, than chasing the asinine irrelevancy of another GoP, Skeptic or AFDave, or even (especially) someone with more time than sense imitating one of these bozos.

Oh, I agree for the most part, BUT there's a need for bullshit to be countered in the most efficient way, and dealing with the really smarmy types like AFDave or GoP or better yet, the "academics" ... it gives training in knowing, anticipating, countering and defeating their bullshit.

I think it can also fairly be said that the proper Bible-thumper can force deeper examinations of science (or other) topics that are rarely addressed in texts. Like the ongoing Dembski information debacle, maybe.

ETA: I'm not disagreeing that it's largely a waste of time, of course. But it does have some utilitarian value, however slight. I'd hate to see what the U.S. would look like if the Bible-thumpers were never opposed at every (meaningful) turn. Probably like this:

Purpose and utility: I'm going to divide this into two types: personal and general.

The general purpose and utility of arguing with denialists of any stripe in any forum is undeniable. They need countering vocally in public and I fully agree that the web is a good place to "train" and cut one's chops so to speak. Not only that but for the professional combating of denialist nonsense it serves as an excellent way to gather information. Out of such efforts have things like the discovery of the Wedge document arisen. On the wider picture you and I are in full agreement.

The personal purpose and utility of arguing is also undeniable, but only up to a certain point. Yes, as mentioned above, it can serve as great training. Yes, it can force one to examine subjects one might not have even considered before. That for me personally has been the greatest utility. I've learned about areas of study I didn't know existed and my offline pursuit of understanding of them has broadened my education considerably. I have a vastly better understanding of how deeply ignorant I am about a huge amount of stuff! The more I learn, the more ignorant I realise I am. It's very humbling and very challenging. It makes me want to correct that ignorance ever more.

I agree think challenging yourself by arguing with people holding different ideas is a good thing, it's how I changed a lot of my old, dodgier ideas for one, and you're right it forces a deeper examination both personally and on a wider level. That said, for any given individual, that utility dramatically drops off when they've learned the general pattern of fundy funster behaviour etc. When the "basics" are learned then time offline, maybe even several years worth, is what's needed. The online antics and "debate" become a distraction from the pursuit of that self education that the original spurt of online antics and debate illustrated a need for.

For example, can you really say that any creationist has presented you with anything intellectually challenging within the last year (likely more than that)? Many of the people here have finely honed, highly tuned, massive calibre muppet guns. Let's for the sake of argument assume that Clownshoes is serious. Let's assume Clownshoes is a genuine creationist, a real person, most likely from somewhere in the central/southern USA who sincerely believes what he/she is typing out here. The second someone like Clownshoes puts finger to keyboard half a dozen of us blow him out of the internet. These poor stooges have no chance, hence why they resort to the usual bullshit they do (tone concern, evasion, Gish Gallops etc etc). How many times have you played out the Grand Canyon arguments? How many times has the information issue been discussed? How many times has each and every one of us described the various modes of selection, the various types of speciation etc. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. It's not a challenge any more.

Also, let's be blunt, playing on the web has its uses but it's hardly real life activism. I think few, if any, of us can claim to contribute what, for example, Wes does in real life for the cause of combating antievolution. Things like PT, Pharyngula etc have grown out of people mucking about on TO, so I know this has its purposes and utility.

My comment above is more to do with individual utility. I'm not going to, or at least very unlikely to, go into combating antievolution in a direct professional sense. Hence this has reached a natural endpoint of utility for me. I don't need or want to tilt at every windmill that appears. I don't for one second criticise those who do, after all I did that too, it just no longer serves the purpose for me it once did. I have new things to learn. Hence why my continued ennui with the whole shebang. I will mention on very large caveat: should new evidence come up, or should a new creationist genuinely interested in discussion as opposed to recycling AIG misconceptions arrive, I'll change my tune. The intellectual to and fro is exciting, useful and interesting. Previous bouts have illustrated to me the glaring holes in my knowledge I need to fill, so my bookshelves now grown with a huge amount of books on evolutionary biology (all read), geology (some read), philosophy (some read) and theology (some read) etc. Amazon.co.uk has done very well out of me and my horizons have been sufficiently expanded to allow me to know what I need to learn better. I need to get on with doing that, and I am.

I hang around because, well, and don't take this the wrong way, I like you guys! The banter is, well, pretty silly, and that amuses me. The fact that there are a hardcore group of people that can swing into action at the merest sniff of a muppet is hilarious, and I'm still learning things from you guys occasionally (esp for example about computer science and information theory).

But, Louis, what about doing it for shit and giggles? It's not so much time consuming when you can home onto the creotards' stupidity in one go. your wit would be sadly miss here if you just went away.

for the sake of Fun, keep up the fight! :D

--------------"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

But, Louis, what about doing it for shit and giggles? It's not so much time consuming when you can home onto the creotards' stupidity in one go. your wit would be sadly miss here if you just went away.

for the sake of Fun, keep up the fight! :D

I'm not going anywhere, but I'm certainly not going to put any effort into dealing with the odd creationist stooge that pops up. If they can't meet the barest minimum standard of intellectual honesty and novelty then why waste my time with them (apart from for shits and giggles of course)?

Mind you, it isn't as much fun for me as once it was, I crave the novel, the challenging, these guys simply cannot manage that any more. Plus I have serious real world commitments, so it's convenient that I care a little less because otherwise I'd be annoyed by wanting to bat the silly fuckers across the internet!

As for wit? Wit? WIT? Please! I make occasional low grade dick jokes.......oh I see what you mean, yeah, I'm fucking hilarious, me! ;-)

Louis

ETA: I'm also homing in on my 5000th post, which is far too many. I wonder what else I could have done with the time. For example I understand the internet has something called "pornography" on it. Now mental masturbation is all well and good, but it's no substitute for the real thing. Ask Deadman, he'll tell you. He is something of an autophilia enthusiast (as well as a scuridophile).

Louis, i agree with you. I have only been doing this a couple of months and I am sick and tired of trying to have a discussion with people whose only skill is cut and paste. I mean, are they even capable of having an original thought?

It was fun to shoot the fish in the barrel for a while, but now it's more like kicking puppies.

Louis, i agree with you. I have only been doing this a couple of months and I am sick and tired of trying to have a discussion with people whose only skill is cut and paste. I mean, are they even capable of having an original thought?

It was fun to shoot the fish in the barrel for a while, but now it's more like kicking puppies.

It's a great tool to train oneself on, as Deadman rightly says, but after that I really think one's time is better spent in the library. You really do get to a point where your denialist bashing skills and basic knowledge are sufficient to take on pretty much all comers when it comes to creationists.

To be blunt, there really aren't that many novel creationist ideas and strategies. They've been recycling the same few for decades, and borrowing from silly post modernists and other species of denialist (look at Holocaust denialists and attempts to bait Deborah Lipstadt into "debates" for example). It's just not that much of a challenge to be frank. I can imagine that the frustration of someone like Genie Scott (or Wes or your average US high school science teacher) who has to fight these fuckers in the field day in day out is enormous. It's important that they continue to do the excellent work they do though, and more power to them.

And I'm sure creationists have the capacity for original thought, in fact I know it's the case, I've worked with creationist colleagues who were excellent chemists. It's the same with all denialists, there is this (sometimes narrow) subset of their intellectual life where all reason seems to fly out of the window, and it's often for very profoundly personal reasons. I doubt you could, for example, find an ardent, active proponent of creationismwho didn't think that their open advocacy of creationism was tied to them being a good christian (and hence a good patriot or person etc). Look at the FL thread, the guy is basically having a brainfart every time someone so much as mentions a different species of christianity. He literally cannot get his mind around the concept, and worse, he is trying very, very hard not to. It's illuminating.

Louis: on the same note, seeing denialist abuse of logic has been illuminating to me, if for no other reason than that it has given me a "as it happens" perspective on a number of informal logical fallacies.

Pretty much like solving a problem with a classmate giving another perspective on a mathematical principle as opposed to reading the proof in one sitting.

Plus, there are numerous people on this forum that I'd like to have a beer with, should the temporal and geographical opportunity arise. Sorry FL/Clownshoes, you're not included in that group.

Scheeze you guys, I was merely going to point out that Darwin never got close to the top of the canyon where he would have found live glaciers. According to his log of the trip, they had to turn back when the Andes were just in view.

But you have so totally demolished the stupidity of creato chew-toy sciencylouse that I feel quite redundant.

You really crack me up guys. This place is like a high school locker room.

Your strategy is to ask a million questions, gripe because I don't address all of them. Then comes all the trash talk and name calling because "I'm scared," or "I'm a creobot."

Then you find some little fact that I got wrong which has nothing to do with the evidence or argument at all.

I'm not done--I've been busy with work--you ever heard of it? I'll give you a nice research paper. Then you answer the EVIDENCE, not me.

I already found a fact that deadman got wrong--namely the height of the redwall cliffs--by quite a bit. Oh my, SEE, that means evolution is false because deadman got the height of the cliffs wrong! That's called sarcasm, lest my words be used against me. But will you ride that one for the next 50 posts--no because he's your boy!

That's the reasoning you guys use. Oh-- clown shoes made a mistake, so that means he knows nothing, therefore all evidence for a young earth is nullified and evolution is true.

And just for the record--the post that I put down that starting all your moaning about cutting and pasting--That was actually an outline by memory. The one you called the gish gallop.

I had spent two hours preparing with quotes, references and elaboration when my system crashed. i had to put it down quickly or guys would have whined or claimed that I had run out of steam or something.

Seriously, it amazes me that you guys are scientists or professors or whatever you are. Some of you are very juvenile--you just use big words to cover it up.

Your strategy is to ask a million questions, gripe because I don't address all of them. Then comes all the trash talk and name calling because "I'm scared," or "I'm a creobot."

Then you find some little fact that I got wrong which has nothing to do with the evidence or argument at all.

I'm not done--I've been busy with work--you ever heard of it? I'll give you a nice research paper. Then you answer the EVIDENCE, not me.

I already found a fact that deadman got wrong--namely the height of the redwall cliffs--by quite a bit. Oh my, SEE, that means evolution is false because deadman got the height of the cliffs wrong! That's called sarcasm, lest my words be used against me. But will you ride that one for the next 50 posts--no because he's your boy!

That's the reasoning you guys use. Oh-- clown shoes made a mistake, so that means he knows nothing, therefore all evidence for a young earth is nullified and evolution is true.

What I posted about the redwall:

Quote

Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario) that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure? Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y154985

Notice the part I bolded above, Clownshoes. It's in my original post. I also posted this:

Quote

"Notice that scienthuse is utterly ignorant of some basic facts: The redwall limestone generally dates from the early to middle Mississippian. In the grand canyon this limestone averages about 450 feet in thickness and 335 million years in age. It holds fossil corals, along with the bryozoans, crinoids, brachipods and other critters mentioned previously" [URL=http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6310;st=90#entry155099[/url]

So...what did I get wrong? Be specific, Clownshoes.

No one asked you a "million" questions, you simply got over a dozen things demonstrably, provably wrong, as I listed.

Well, to be fair, Clownshoes DID write this bit of genius I mentioned previously:

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 05 2009,04:08)

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,22:02)

My little illustration--Say you were assigned to make a 2 foot thick wall of wet sand by 8 feet long. You began to pile it up and shape it. How high do you think you could get it before it fell. Just off the top of your head what? 6 feet 8 feet maybe? Now if you had to make (hypothetically) a 100 foot thick wall by say 1000 feet long. How high could get it? Just say 300 feet. Now if you had packed it good. Now leave it set for a few months and come back and and start digging a trench through the thickness--for 100 foot. Dig it 50 foot deep--what would happen. You think it would collapse? Some of it would some of it wouldn't. Like your picture. It would eventually harden and stuff would keep falling off now and then.

This was the funniest part, really. If you read it carefully, it's like someone on hallucinogens -- or maybe with brain damage -- wrote it.

Apparently, wet sand formed into a wall "300 feet" high (on a base 100 feet thick) ... left to dry for months...doesn't all collapse when one digs into it.